Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10-Sep-20 03:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> I have read the new document.  Thank you for the updates.
> I am happy with the direction we are going.
> 
> Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 1) we should not include remote participants for IETF106 and earlier.
>     > They did not have an expectation of eligibility.  I hold this very
>     > weakly and would be easily persuaded to change my mind!
> 
> I was going to post the same thing.

That's also my personal opinion.

>     > 2) we should include remote participants for IETF110 (and any future
>     > IETFs if this document is renewed) regardless of whether there is a
>     > face-to-face component.
> 
> I can live with this, but I believe that this is what the other paths are for.
> to be clear: I don't think that we should count remote attendees when there
> is a face-to-face meeting.

So they are second-class participants?

> I also don't think that we should count virtual meetings beyond IETF110, so I
> disagree with your rewording of path 1, btw.

Huh?

Firstly, what happens in 2022 depends on the evaluation of the experiment
in 2021 (see "2.  Term and Evaluation of the Experiment"), so nothing is
fixed beyond IETF110. 

Second, what if the IETF decides to reduce its f2f meeting frequency
permanently? Surely we'll count remote attendance then?

> I think that it is better to deal with the other paths properly, rather than
> mutate the 3-of-5 rule to include remote participation.

If you look at the data snapshot, 375 people out of 1538 are eligible
only because of attendance. What you say would exclude those 375. Maybe
that's what we want, but it's a long term issue, out of scope for the
proposed experiment.
 
> Note that I say this as a major detractor of the 3-of-5 in-person rule!
> I want to keep it as it is, even though I have often disliked it.
> 
>     > 3) we MUST have some remote participation controls, most likely with a
>     > fee waiver program that requires a degree of assertion that you're not
>     > a sock puppet.  With this in place, remote attendance is a reasonable
>     > path.
> 
> The simplest non-sock puppet check I can see would involve:
>   1) having a DT account.
> 
> The next hurdle I might include would be:
>   2) is on at least one @ietf.org list.
> 
> Finally, we could do:
>   3) has posted an ID of any kind. (even trivial)
>   {Maybe we should have a badge system... like stackexchange...}
> 
> (I note that the DT has all this information already)

Interesting but I don't see how it would change the draft which
is for a 1 or 2 year experiment.

>     > I would change the wording of 4, path 1 to be:
> 
> I would suggest we change the "names" of the paths to not be numbers.
> I can't remember which is which, and now we've renumbered them.

How about Path A for attendance (replacing Path 1), Path W
for WG Chair or Secretary (replacing Path 2), and Path R
for RFC author (replacing Path 3)?
> 
> What I'd like to do is keep the criteria in path 1 as is.

There is still an ambiguity.

   Brian
> As I wrote in the other email, I'd like to include an appendix in the
> document about possible future actions.  Two of those would be:
> 
> a) that future (post IETF110) all-virtual meetings will count towards 3-of-5 (path 1)
>    rule.
>    {We may want to provide an out for the IESG to declare this on
>    a case by case basis}
> 
> b) that future face-to-face meetings will include counting remote attendees
>    as if they were physically present.
> 
> ---
> 
> Now, I have long advocated having a reasonably high barrier to becoming
> nomcom eligible (and I'm okay-ish with just path 1, btw), but having a
> *different* (lower) barrier to maintaining nomcom eligibility.
> The response to this suggestion has been lukewarm, but that was in the
> pre-pandemic days, and I found it hard to understand motivation for
> disagreement.  (I could jump to conclusions if you unicast me)
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
>